Talk:City of Durham (district)

Purpose of this article

I created this article with the intention that it represents the City of Durham electoral district, with the communities contained therein as subdivisions of the article. If any one feels that these communities merit a whole article on their own, then please include only a summary here with the tagline

see main article Durham

(for example). Thanks. DMB 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible changes

In the Newton Hall section, there is a reference to the two local pubs. "The Newton Hall" was recently demolished and I believe there is going to be a new housing development there. /will

Pity Me

Pity Me is missing on this page, I do not know where to add it. 84.30.175.153 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No merger

I oppose any merger of this article with Durham. A rename perhaps, but the district, former or otherwise, needs an article. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, having proposed it, I support the merger. I should also add that this article now refers only to the City of Durham as defined an given point in time, i.e. from 1974 to 2009. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. A local authority that existed for 35 years is historically notable. Actually, Durham City Council probably has a more, shall I say, "colourful" history than most district councils, and there's a lot more that could be written about it than what we have now. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just aware of this - there are plenty of articles on local authorities across the UK which aren't merged to their town, so I'd oppose this. Pretty Green (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Just because the district doesn't exist any more does not mean it is no longer notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Then it should be renamed City of Durham (former metropolitan district). The City of Durham is synonymous with Durham, the "city in the North East of England" and should redirect there. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry Chrisieboy, but you're wrong on this one. The City of Durham does still exist, as the title has been continued by Charter Trustees being appointed for the former local government area. It is not the same as the unparished area which equates to the former Municipal Borough of Durham. As I understand, there is a continuing debate over whether the former unparished area should become a civil parish. It is unclear what would happen to the Charter Trustees if that were to happen. Normally, the creation of a civil parish would mean that the Charter Trustees are abolished and their charter would pass to the parish; however, as the charter is held for an area covering numerous parishes, different rules will probably apply. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Durham

For those who don't have Durham on watch, there is currently a debate at talk:Durham about moving the Durham article. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham and Framwelgate

According to VOB, Durham and Framwelgate [1] was the name of the unreformed borough and the 1835-1974 borough was simply called Durham. [2] I've found some references to the 1835-1974 borough on Wikipedia as Durham and Framwelgate, which I think might be an error. However, VoB is not perfect, so does anyone have another source to confirm either way? MRSC (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Local government in England and Wales: A Guide to the New System. London: HMSO. 1974. pp. 46, 114. ISBN 0117508470. has it as Durham and Framwelgate MB up to 31/03/1974. VoB have copied Youngs as ever.Lozleader (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above: "Durham and Framwelgate" does not appear in a search of the JUSTIS legislation database between 1835 (Schedule A of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 the reformed borough of Durham succeeded the "Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City of Durham and Framwelgate") and 1970.

In that year The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1970 defined Durham parliamentary constituency as

(i) The borough of Durham and Framwelgate; (ii) the rural district of Sedgefield and the rural district of Durham except the parish of Brancepeth.

This replaced the definition of 1948: (i) The borough of Durham; (ii) the urban districts of Hetton and Spennymoor; (iii) the rural district of Durham. "Durham and Framwelgate" is given as the name of the borough in

• The English Non-metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972,
• The Registration of Title Order 1974 and the
• Local Authorities (Armorial Bearings) Order 1974.

Conclusion: the council changed the name of the borough/city betwen 1948 and 1970. Lozleader (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating an article for the 1835-1974 borough. Durham and Framwelgate is probably the best name to use, with Municipal Borough of Durham and Framwelgate and Municipal Borough of Durham as redirects. Can also cover the ancient borough with that title. Based on the above, I guess city status has fluctuated between entities named Durham and Durham and Framwelgate, or has 'Durham' always been the city? MRSC (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just googling around, there seem to be charters etcetera that referred to it as "City of Durham and Framwelgate". The merger of the two boroughs seems to have happened in 1565. Very complicated municipal history as far as I can see with a bunch of small boroughs such as Elvet and St Giles and all made more interesting by the fact that the bishop granted the charters due to his palatine jurisdiction. Oh and Durham Castle was a completely separate jurisdiction than all of the above. Definitely needs reseaching!Lozleader (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Had a look in the London Gazette archives. As far as I can see "Durham and Framwelgate" was always the formal name, while the local authority called itself "Durham City Council" (or "The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Durham and Framwelgate acting by council"). There may be similarities with what most people called the Borough of Dartmouth: officially "Clifton-Dartmouth-Hardness", or the Borough of "Dunheved alias Launceston".Lozleader (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on this, I think it is fairly safe to call the article Durham and Framwelgate and claim this entity had city status. MRSC (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Durham (district) is a bad name for this article

There's a problem with unilateral page moves, and its that what might make sense to one person does not necessarily read best for others.

'Durham (district)' is bad for the following three reasons:

1. The name of the entity was 'City of Durham' not 'Durham'
2. 'District' is an ambiguous word
3. There have been multiple 'districts' which could be referred to as 'Durham': County Durham, Regional Municipality of Durham, Durham (electoral district), Durham (provincial electoral district), City of Durham (UK Parliament constituency) and Durham and Framwelgate

This move really ought to have gone through procedurally in order to iron these issues out. I suggest one of the following remedies:

• Move back to City of Durham with an appropriate hat-link at the top. Though I can see why we might not want to do this - the disambig page possibly works best for 'Durham City' and related terms given the variety of bodies which have held Durham's city status over history
• Move this to City of Durham (non-metropolitan district) or City of Durham (district). The former is the most clear, but it does use technical vocab which might put some off. The latter is better than the new set-up because it gives the article its correct name and avoids confusion with the County district, historical D & F and the American jurisdictions, even if it keeps the word 'district'.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, personally I prefer City of Durham (non-metropolitan district) with City of Durham (district) as a redirect if people don't want to fill in the technical term. Pretty Green (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Durham (district) → ? — (to City of Durham (non-metropolitan district) or City of Durham (district))? User:Pretty Green 09:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose return to City of Durham as the former local government district is no longer the primary meaning of "City of Durham". MRSC (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move to City of Durham (non-metropolitan district) as non-standard (see WP:UKDISTRICTS). MRSC (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move to City of Durham (district) as non-standard (see WP:UKDISTRICTS). MRSC (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed change would be non-standard, and current naming is consistent with other articles such as Swansea (district), Cardiff (district), Chester (district) all extinct districts that held city status.Lozleader (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy should not be used on Wikipedia for its own justification. Whilst I see why the use of naming standards etc is important, it would also be nice if my concerns as to why I think the name is inappropriate are addressed: namely that due to the presence of a variety of 'districts' that could be legitimately named 'Durham', this page should have some sort of further disambiguation in its title (whether that be 'City of', 'non-metropolitan', or whatever). Heck, if an editor agrees with my concerns but still feels that naming standards are more important than the ambiguity of the title that I mentioned then by all means that's fine, but it would be nice to engage with my concerns rather than rejecting a viewpoint regardless of argument simply due to it not falling into a set naming standard. This practice is a simple misuse of policy.Pretty Green (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not that enthusiastic about Durham (district), Swansea (district) etcetera as article titles, and if someone can figure something better that would be great. But these suggestions seem worse than what we have. There has, actually, only ever been one district called Durham. There has been a rural district, a municipal borough (which was actually called Durham and Framwelgate officially). There was a county and is now a regional municipality in Ontario. None of the Durhams in the USA seem to be districts, they are towns or cities or townships. The only thing I can see it getting mixed up with is Durham District School Board, for which a hatnote should do. In other words, Durham (district) is unlikely to be confused with anything else.

"City of" seems unnecessary, we have (for example) County Borough of Leeds and County Borough of Salford without adding city to the article name. In point of fact "city" and "district" are synonymous in this case: you could either call it the non-metropolitan district of Durham, or the City of Durham, but not the non-metropolitan district of the City of Durham. The district was not called City of Durham, it was called Durham. "City" was an optional title used in place of district.

So I guess what I'm saying that the name, while not perfect, does unambiguously identify the 1974-2009 entity. It's a compromise, and a compromise designed by a committee at that. However, until somebody comes up with something better... Lozleader (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion on article naming moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_districts#Naming. MRSC (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ,I appreciate the extended responses. I still stand by my feeling that I feel that its a bad name, but obviously there are Wikiproject's etc who deal with setting these things over the entire encyclopedia.--Pretty Green (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Referendum

I recall a referendum a few years back (late 2006?), asking the residents of Durham whether they wanted a change to a unitary council - with the result coming back that they wanted things kept as they were (separate councils). Despite this, the changes went ahead a few years later in 2009. Now, I could be misremembering this - it was a few years ago - but if not then this opposition to the change should presumably be mentioned in the Abolition section of this article. Does anyone else remember the referendum? --82.70.156.254 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It would need reliable sources not "memories" Lozleader (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

June 2007 it would appear:

VOTERS in County Durham gave an overwhelming vote of confidence to its district councils when they voted three to one against doing away with them. Out of 156,922 electors who voted in a referendum this month to either "retain and improve" the county's current two tier system of local government, or abolish the districts and establish a single unitary authority for the whole of County Durham, 76.4% - or 119,439 voters - said No to a single unitary council. ...Of the 392,674 electorate in County Durham, 39.9% returned referendum ballot papers. ....County council leader Albert Nugent described the "unofficial referendum" as "not worth the paper it's written on." But leaders of the seven districts, Chester-le-Street, Derwentside, Durham City, Easington, Sedgefield, Teesdale and Wear Valley, disagree... "The poll has produced a result that is nothing more than a red herring, and while it has landed the council tax payers of County Durham with a bill of almost a third of a million pounds, it has not taken the debate about local government reorganisation a single step further forward.""Voters vote to keep district councils". The Journal. Newcastle upon Tyne. 20 June 2007. p. 4.

Lozleader (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durham District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100227220959/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/si/si2009/uksi_20090837_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090837_en_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Durham District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005175732/http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/comment/leader/3829317.Parish_debate_is_all_about_party_politics/ to http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/comment/leader/3829317.Parish_debate_is_all_about_party_politics/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309174518/http://www.durhamcity.gov.uk/Pid/3601/15 to http://www.durhamcity.gov.uk/Pid/3601/15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durham District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216092907/http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Council+and+Democracy+-+County+Durham+Books to http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Council+and+Democracy+-+County+Durham+Books/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"Durham City Council" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Durham City Council has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 31 § Durham City Council until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)